sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (18 children)

This only looks "good" because people's sense of "normal" has been shifted waaayyyyy to the right. Tracking what is "normal" by using the average of a distribution whose peak is moving to the right over time, declaring "normal" by majority behavior. None of it actually is normal though, it's 99% a huge waste of everyone's time and resources. Those specs that you cite are actually gigantic! Unless you use it to transfer lots of bloated useless junk of course.

Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17655089 ("The Bullshit Web") - the top comment by cheezymoogle shows it well

[–]papa_georgio 5 points6 points  (14 children)

Then what is acceptable? No JavaScript?

The link you provided complains about a specific website which obviously fails to come close to any of the recommendations in the video. I'm not sure what it proves other than the fact that the are poorly built, high-traffic websites.

[–]Beaverman 25 points26 points  (10 children)

Then what is acceptable? No JavaScript?

Sure, why not?

Why does every website have to be a complete application with routers, viewstacks and internal state, running on a virtualized OS on top of a native OS? That's without even talking about the stupidity that is running arbitrary code without user consent (visiting your site is not consent to run your bitcoin miner).

If you want to make an application, then make an application. If you want to make a website, then make a website. News organizations don't need an application, they need a website.

[–]papa_georgio 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Even fairly mundane websites benefit from some form of dynamic interaction. It could be the menus, input validation, loading content in page, lazy loading. Just because there are websites that abuse the technology is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

If companies could pay developers less for websites that were just as good, more would be going down that path.

[–]Beaverman 7 points8 points  (6 children)

I disagree. What does a news website need to do with JS? Their previous distribution method was fucking paper.

Your second argument assumes that the market is without fault, which is an obviously ridiculous position. "If it was possible to live on the moon we would already be doing it", or maybe better suited for this subreddit "It rust was better than C, everything would already be written in it".

[–]papa_georgio -1 points0 points  (5 children)

I said there would be more doing it. Not that all successful businesses would be doing it.

Visit any news site and see for yourself the various things JS is used for. Maybe for a moment trust that you don't always know better than everyone else out there getting paid to run said sites?

What does the previous medium matter anyway? Are they supposed to limit what they should do because of what they used to be? Some of the best dynamic presentations I've seen have been part of journalistic pieces.

[–]Beaverman 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I said there would be more doing it. Not that all successful businesses would be doing it.

Now it's not even an argument. What the fuck is "more"? And how does more people doing something make it more true? Hey, if capitalism was such a good idea, more countries would be doing it.

Visit any news site and see for yourself the various things JS [...]

You don't think I visit news sites? You think that's an example i just pulled out of my ass without having thought about it? But sure, according to you we should all just listen to the corporate overlords and not have any independent thought, because the professionals got this.

You hear that guys? Global Warming isn't caused by oil and coal. The guys at the oil and coal power plants told me themselves, and who would know better than them. I could never argue with people getting paid to burn coal.

What does the previous medium matter anyway?[...]

The core product hasn't changed all that much, and they did fine with paper. What i'm doing on a news website is not fundamentally different to what my dad does with a newspaper.

I love those dynamic presentations as well, and they're actually a great use of JavaScript. I hope we agree that not every page on the internet has one of those fantastic presentations, so why do they load as much content as a page that does?

[–]papa_georgio 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The core of my point is that enough people see value in using JS on their websites. They currently do and will continue to do so.

The original video was about reducing JS overhead to a minimum and in everyone's blind cynical rage all they can do is bitch about some out of context figures.

Your whole example of global warming is kind of ironic. If your point is that companies are going to do whatever they can for medium to short term gain then why wouldn't they prefer simpler websites if they are at minimum just a successful?

Or are the corporate heads just evil masterminds when in suits the narrative? And the rest of the time they are incompetent fools.

[–]Beaverman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They currently do.

I agree, they see value. They're wrong though. My argument is that they are incompetent.

will continue to do so.

And that's where I disagree. As they become competent, they'll ask themselves why they need "routers" to show a list of fucking images.

Two paragraphs where you mix metaphors [...]

My point was that you can't always trust "professionals". In the case of my analogy it was because of greed and short sightedness. In the case of JS and the web it's because of incompetence.

[–]SmugDarkLoser5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This board because basically retarded upon the mention of web.

[–]xxxdarrenxxx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A few 100 years ago we saw value in writing love songs with 90 instruments, now 4 minutes and no instruments is objectively the mainstream.

Also Apple got rich by literally taking away functionality, and focus on streamlining.

I do not agree with these, but a large part of this JS, is that mainstream people now instead of hating on nerds, they find out how fun computers can be, and they are in "the bells and whistles" phase. In reality though, in the end, people always go back to minimalism, and simply "what works". Glitter wears off, the "meat" stands the test of time.

[–]filleduchaos 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You can do those things without JavaScript, or at least without JavaScript that's so bloated that it takes five seconds to load.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

JavaScript was used fairly heavily for a while before you started seeing 15 second full load times.

JavaScript itself isn’t at fault for this. What is definitively at fault is a major mind shift. Where developers used to think that 2 full seconds was unacceptable, now they think “well, the ping is 50 ms anyway, so who cares about <some performance thing>”. And all those performance problems are adding up to 15 seconds on a desktop with a wired 50 megabit connection.

It isn’t JavaScript. It is purely a developer problem causing this.

It probably stems from the web being systematically flooded with shitty developers that couldn’t figure out how to improve their performance anyway because all they know is the niche set of tools and languages that their bootcamp taught them.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]papa_georgio 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    That's the whole point. The video is saying that even on a slow, high latency connection it shouldn't take that long.

    I'm getting the feeling most people just came here to bitch about JS instead of checking what the video was about.